Evangelical preacher. You can’t be pro-life and pro-gun

[JonNC]

I see you didn’t bother reading my other posts as well.

You wrote:

I agree with background checks.** I would prefer a ban** but it would be impossible because the real problem in the U.S. is cultural.

That’s what I was responding to. Who should be banned from guns, in your opinion?

I would agree with you, however, that the US has a growing cultural problem, that being a growing entitlement / welfare state mentality, instead of a hard work / personal responsibility / charitable giving mentality. As the US moves away from a Judeo-Christian culture, and into a secularist-progressive statist culture, the value of individual life and individual rights and liberty becomes secondary to collective power.

Jon

 

[exnihilo]

Why would you want to disarm our police who serve the public and face great risks?

And what about the Secret Service men and women who guard our politicians? Why would you disarm THEM too?

The police serve the state. They rarely prevent crime and commit a fair amount of it under the cover of law. Police are mostly crime historians and ticket writers. They are also a particular danger to be around because as agents of the state they have a high degree of immunity from dangerous, damaging or deadly acts.

Oh, so you only want to disarm citizens, and allow government to remain armed? Why?
If guns should be banned, then all of them should be banned. The vast majority of people who are killed with guns are killed with guns belonging to military entities of governments. Seems to me they should be disarmed first.

Let’s start:
Before citizens should be required to give up arms:

1. the President and Congress should give up armed secret service, you know, as a good faith gesture that citizens no longer need them.
2. the government guarantee that no criminals have firearms
3. the government guarantee that no foreign entity that could harm our citizens has arms
4. that our government at all levels has no arms.

Almost forgot, my 24 year old niece, who is rather petite, insists I include that, before she gives up her arms, men give up testosterone.

What I think was the best feature of US law, inherited from the British and derived from the Christian Faith, was the notion that all are equal before the law. Of course this was never perfect. But in my opinion we’ve moved wrongly in the direction where the state and its agents are above the law. The government exempts itself from many laws. You see it in small things like how the former speaker of the House smoked in his office. But it is also true for bigger issues. The idea these people should be given even more power by disempowering the citizenry seems strange to me.

 

[JonNC]

The police serve the state. They rarely prevent crime and commit a fair amount of it under the cover of law. Police are mostly crime historians and ticket writers. They are also a particular danger to be around because as agents of the state they have a high degree of immunity from dangerous, damaging or deadly acts.

What I think was the best feature of US law, inherited from the British and derived from the Christian Faith, was the notion that all are equal before the law.** Of course this was never perfect. But in my opinion we’ve moved wrongly in the direction where the state and its agents are above the law.** The government exempts itself from many laws. You see it in small things like how the former speaker of the House smoked in his office. But it is also true for bigger issues. The idea these people should be given even more power by disempowering the citizenry seems strange to me.

Another error in our move away from equality before the law is the move toward “protected groups”. Certainly, some groups, many in fact, faced mistreatment during the nation’s history, none more so than blacks and Native Americans, but creating “protected status”, which effectively makes some groups more equal than others, is as immoral as the initial discrimination, and sets up further animosity. The ulterior motive behind this, of course, is the further empowering government at the expense of individual liberty.

Jon

 

[808Catholic]

But see there one can say your using eye for an eye analogy. Well he has a gun I will to and we’re going to shoot at each other til someone dies. Not to much evolution there.

Eye for an eye was intended to limit the act of revenge. In the OT days, if a neighbor killed your son, you could not wipe out his entire family. It was meant to limit retribution and, just as Jesus points out when asked a question about divorce (which was allowed by Mosaic law), the “law” as instituted because we didn’t understand God’s law to begin with. If we follow God’s commandments, we would be fine but we don’t so we have laws to govern our society. When rules place unjust laws on us, we can seek to do what’s just and right in the eye of God.

 

[Brendan]

You really think you will be able to protect yourself against a home invader? I seriously doubt it. How is your weapon going to help you when it’s locked away and you have someone climbing into your bedroom window? .

If this mom could, why not anyone else?

wxyz.com/news/mom-opens-fire-on-home-invaders-in-detroit-to-defend-children

 

[jcwit]

You really think you will be able to protect yourself against a home invader? I seriously doubt it. How is your weapon going to help you when it’s locked away and you have someone climbing into your bedroom window?

“Just wait there, you have broken into the wrong house buddy. Now what was the combination? Where is the key? Where is the ammo”

Mine are not locked away, nor are they unloaded!

 

[benjohnson]

But see there one can say your using eye for an eye analogy. Well he has a gun I will to and we’re going to shoot at each other til someone dies. Not to much evolution there.

Jesus didn’t say “buy a sword and go murder” as you are alluding to.

Jesus said “buy a sword” and so I did - the modern version of a personal sword is a personal firearm.

In the Lutheran tradition, we are encouraged to turn the other cheek for insults and harm to our own person. We balance that with our calling to defend the helpless and those that depend on us.

 

[jcwit]

Christ didn’t tell us to fall on the sword he told us to buy either.

 

[JackVk]

I’ve noticed that it’s typical of the pro-gun control crowd to treat gun owners as testosterone-soaked sociopaths looking for someone to muck up, as if they’re just looking for an excuse to kill someone.

If that’s the case, then the anti-gun camp is comprised of a) people with a phobia of inanimate objects, and b) fawning, servile collectivists who want everyone equally oppressed by the State.

I plan on buying a gun eventually and taking it up as a hobby. Taking a gun to a shooting range, or going out to the country for “plinking”, is also what avid gun enthusiasts do. They also study the history and physics behind them.

Anyone who knows the history of Prohibition knows it doesn’t work. Same with guns and the War on Drugs. The more you ban something, the more people want it.

 

[benhur]

You really think you will be able to protect yourself against a home invader? I seriously doubt it. How is your weapon going to help you when it’s locked away and you have someone climbing into your bedroom window?

“Just wait there, you have broken into the wrong house buddy. Now what was the combination? Where is the key? Where is the ammo”

Most burglars just want your tv and cash. They don’t want to kill you and your entire family. What kind of alternate reality do you folk live in?

I think only farmers and law enforcement authorities should be allowed legal access to weapons.

Better off spending that money on karate/self-defence lessons.

Lately, I have been thinking any one who has served in the military should continue to carry firearms in civilian life. That is, the police are not enough coverage in this terrorist, guerilla warfare. In fact, if a terrorist (or anyone) will plan to use guns, he will go where there are no guns but his. One reason gun control during these crisis times has fertile ground still is because not enough people have been killed by terrorists yet. That is not a very noble stance.

 

[SWolf]

I’ve noticed that it’s typical of the pro-gun control crowd to treat gun owners as testosterone-soaked sociopaths looking for someone to muck up, as if they’re just looking for an excuse to kill someone.

If that’s the case, then the anti-gun camp is comprised of a) people with a phobia of inanimate objects, and b) fawning, servile collectivists who want everyone equally oppressed by the State.

I plan on buying a gun eventually and taking it up as a hobby. Taking a gun to a shooting range, or going out to the country for “plinking”, is also what avid gun enthusiasts do. They also study the history and physics behind them.

Anyone who knows the history of Prohibition knows it doesn’t work. Same with guns and the War on Drugs. The more you ban something, the more people want it.

It’s also funny how often Americans are chastised, often justifiably, for commenting on another country without understanding cultural context. Yet many of the same people seem to think they can criticize American gun policy based on the most dubious stereotypes imaginable.

The fact that gun violence in mostly done by minority gangs is not talked about, as it creates some very uncomfortable questions.

americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/how_covering_up_minority_crime_leads_to_gun_control.html